People are afraid to say it, don't care if it's swept under the rug, because only when women die or feel pain is it bad. But no, war first and foremost kills men. Everything first and foremost kills men. — The Great Whatever
People are still just as racist as they ever were, btw -- and people become increasingly racist as they're forced to live in close quarters with other ethnic groups. I live in Chicago and this city has absolutely disgusting race relations, it's just a foul city. — The Great Whatever
I think women genuinely and deeply hate men. — The Great Whatever
At the end of the day, a woman sees you as something that, if her life were in danger, you would be expected to lay down and die so she could live. I think that's the bottom line, the brass tacks. You can wax about equality all you want when you're safe and nothing matters, but when it comes right down to it and the masks are taken off, who takes the bullet?
There are pretty disturbing convictions lying beneath people's everyday actions. It takes a little prod to bear them out. — The Great Whatever
Though I don't like the kind of smug dismissal that implies since something can be psychoanalyzed it's therefore illegitimate. Why can't someone own up to, and defend, their neuroses? — The Great Whatever
They're not part of the world of appearances, but their transcendental ground ala Kant. Everything of the world of appearances is in time and space, but time and space are not in that world. — The Great Whatever
The will doesn't need time, space, etc. Only presentation does. The will doesn't always objectify itself as presentation. — The Great Whatever
Again, it does not apply to the thing itself, it is the FLIP SIDE of Will.Again, I think this makes the mistake of reifying causality as something applying to the thing in itself. How does the will 'make' representations? — The Great Whatever
This is just not Schop's position. Presentation is secondary, as one sort of behavior the will participates in (objectifying itself). Nothing needs to 'ensure' that there are objects. Objects only exist for representing creatures. — The Great Whatever
The organism does exist in a kind of timeless present, but that's not the same as it being eternal or having always existed in the past (eternality is not timelessness) -- to think this again seems to reify time inappropriately.
And again, causation doesn't apply to the will as such, only to the forms of representation, when time and space interact. But these are only veils used to objectify the will. — The Great Whatever
Yes, objects need subjects and subjects need objects- Will "needs" representation, representation "needs" Will. — schopenhauer1
Will does not come "prior" to Representation. — schopenhauer1
There is no time before time where Will is doing this or that such that time and space are created at sub time x. — schopenhauer1
Just as the Will is eternal, so too is the primitive organism, as again the first organism was NOT created at any one point in time, since there was no time before it existed. — schopenhauer1
You are asserting that I did not mean that it exists in a timeless present. If I did say that, then I will just agree to the language of timeless present. Again, this is the oddity that I find not convincing- the ever present organism. — schopenhauer1
As for your idea of "veils used to objectify Will", you make it seem like there is a second party hiding the Will. It is all Will, but it is just another aspect of Will. What I think Schop emphasized most was that Will is the hidden aspect that may give us an understanding of what is behind the scenes of the phenomenal. The idea that the phenomenal is actually an illusion only makes sense in the context of the idea that humans may not realize the inner aspect, and take the phenomenal for all there is. — schopenhauer1
This seems to imply that the will is a 'subject' and the representation an 'object.' But this is wrong, subject and object are both contained in representation, and will is neither. Yes, the subject and object are co-essential. But neither is essential to the will. — The Great Whatever
It does, in the sense that there is plenty of will without representation (the latter only exists in highly developed organisms), but not vice-versa. — The Great Whatever
This seems simple handwaving and evading the problem purposefully or because you miss my point which I just stated above to your previous quote but will do so again here.Time only functions when the organism is around, but so long as it does, it always retrojects backward to a time before that organism existed. You are confusing things and talking about time as if it were part of the thing in-itself. If you want to talk about time, you can only talk about it via representation, and in representation, time presents itself as preceding the life of the organism, always. And this suffices for the empirical reality of the fact that there was a time before the organism. — The Great Whatever
It's a tricky thing. You mentioned, justifiably, that anecdotal 'I know a..." accounts don't mean much. I have a whole bundle of personal women-who-self-sacrificed anecdotes but these will, inevitably, be chalked up as exceptions, falsifications, romanticizations.
But the flip-side of that, is how do you defend the idea that women, for the most part, deeply hate men, without resorting yourself to anecdotes?
Does it come down to whoever can rally the most anecdotes for their cause?
Where does your insight into the female soul come from? — csalisbury
I don't think it's about a 'soul' -- all these things are based on contingent social privileges, but they are ones I don't realistically see changing any time soon, and in fact they seem to be getting further entrenched. Maybe they have some non-accidental grounding in biology, but that doesn't mean it's essential.
Mostly I try to read what people write when they aren't in public and so don't have to save face. That's why I like the internet so much. And I read a lot of feminist literature too.
You're right, I don't really have anecdotes, because I don't (and try not to) spend much time around women. Some people might think that you're in a worse position to judge with less personally at stake. but there's a flip side to that, being too personally invested can make you refuse to see what might be obvious to someone without that investment.
Why do you think that?Yeah, but I think most of the attitudes they espouse are implicit in the way 'non-polemical' women behave.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.